LAWS(DLH)-2005-8-91

VIJAY SAGAR Vs. SUNDER LAL SAGAR

Decided On August 25, 2005
VIJAY SAGAR Appellant
V/S
SUNDER LAL SAGAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for partition of property no. 42, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, claimed by the son against his father and another brother. The construction of the said plot was got effected by taking loans from various people, by the karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (for short 'HUF'). Ground floor was constructed in the year 1956 and the first and the second floors were constructed in the year 1960-61. A loan was also taken from the Life Insurance Corporation of India which filed a suit for recovery being Suit No. 45/1974. The suit was eventually compromised. The plaintiff had approached the court with the averment that the suit property is a joint property and is liable to be partitioned by metes and bounds as the plaintiff has 1/3rd Share in the property in question. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the defendants are denying title, interest as well as extent of possession and user. The relation between the parties were further strained and ultimately the plaintiff filed the present suit. According to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 is the karta of the HUF, known as Hari Ram Sunder Lal Sagar and the HUF is assessed to income tax. Defendant no.2 is entitled to equal share in the property i.e. 1/3rd undivided share in the property.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants wherein it is stated that defendant no.1 had acquired the suit property out of his individual income and the lease deed was executed individually in favour of defendant no.1 and not in the name of the HUF. The property was converted into freehold on 18th November, 1999 and the conveyance deed was executed in favour of defendant no.1 only, and not in favour of the HUF. The loan from LIC is admitted, however, it is admitted that same was also taken in the personal capacity by the defendant.

(3.) Despite various pleas taken by the respective parties in their pleadings, certain attempts were made to amicably settle the matter. First order in this regard was passed by the Court on 30th April, 2003 which reads as under :-